Wolf Creek 2 writer-director Greg McLean has slammed Margaret Pomeranz and David Stratton for failing to support local productions, after the ABC duo decided against reviewing his horror sequel on Tuesday’s At the Movies.

Despite the film hitting the top spot at the Aussie box office on its debut last weekend, the pair gave it a wide berth, presumably on grounds of taste, following past criticisms of original's extreme violence. The pair chose to review Lone Survivor, Non-Stop, Gloria and The Wind Rises instead.

In an emailed response to Fairfax Media, McLean said: "Seriously, what on earth are they thinking? Simply not reviewing an independent Aussie movie that beat its US studio competitor Lone Survivor ... is worth paying some attention."

Margaret Pomeranz and David Stratton's failure to review Wolf Creek 2 on At the Movies raises eyebrows.

He added that Lone Survivor, the Mark Wahlberg war epic, cost $80 million to produce and market and featured on about 15 per cent more screens.

Advertisement

"Even if they didn’t enjoy the movie, there are many, many Wolf Creek fans out there who love horror and thriller movies and want to support locally made productions," he said.

"Like them, I’d love to hear their thoughts on our movie, whatever they might be. I really hope they reconsider and give Wolf Creek 2 the fair go it deserves."

Director Greg McLean, right, with actor Ryan Corr on the set of Wolf Creek 2.

The At the Movies website does carry a four-minute Wolf Creek 2 report, with clips and interviews with McLean and star John Jarrett, but neither Pomeranz, Stratton or in fact any reporter make an appearance.

Incredulous fans have taken to Twitter to question the TV show's absent review, with one person asking: "I don't understand, as critics, [how] they can choose not to cover an Oz (sic) box office #1."

The MA15+-rated Wolf Creek 2 was the top draw at the Aussie box-office on its debut last weekend, pulling in $1.681 million.

In the past Stratton has refused to review 1992 skinhead drama Romper Stomper, causing its director Geoffrey Wright to throw a glass of wine over him nearly three years later at the Venice Film Festival. Stratton later said he feared the film could "stir up racial violence".

At the Movies executive producer said Jo Chichester said in a statement: "Margaret and David reviewed the first Wolf Creek, David’s thoughts on Wolf Creek 2 are in his review in The Australian, and there is an interview with the filmmaker and lead actor on the ATM website."

What Fairfax film reviewers thought of Wolf Creek 2:

Paul Byrnes gives four stars: As brutal and unforgiving as the first movie was, and as disreputable the genre in which it excelled, the original Wolf Creek did what an Australian film is supposed to do. It held up a mirror and not one that was part of the official story. It wasn't comforting, which might explain why Jarratt was overlooked in the national film awards that year for the best performance of his long career.

The sequel, eight years later, expands upon the same themes. It is bigger and louder and just as bloody, but Mick says a lot more this time around, most of it unrepeatable.

Ed Gibbs gives two stars: As Taylor, Jarratt is jovial to the point of absurdity, leaving you yearning for that terrifying persona of yore. His Mick Taylor did indeed become an iconic horror figure of sorts, and uniquely Australian, as McLean has rightly noted. But seen again, for only the second time in almost a decade, he has been oddly reduced to a caricature.

As often happens with horror sequels, there's a gain in showmanship and a loss in raw intensity. Blood flows freely, but nothing matches the queasiness of the original's famous ''head on a stick'' scene, and Mick's sexual urges are (thankfully, some might think) more proclaimed than visibly indulged.

There are moments when the film feels like a burlesque of its predecessor, or at least a mocking commentary, teasing out some of the factors that led to a hit.

201 comments

I too was very surprised at David and Margaret's comment last night they had "chosen" not to review Wolf Creek 2. Immediately I assumed it was done purely on the grounds of their subjective taste - i.e., they didn't like the film's content and opted to not review it accordingly.

If true, this unfortunately reinforces to me that David and Margaret's time in this role is coming to an end. I've been one of their biggest fans for a long time. Over recent years, they've slowly turned into, at best, parodies of themselves and at worst, really cranky and increasingly irrelevant film critics, focussed on minutiae (David's obsession about hand held cameras; Margaret's obvious politically-influenced agenda when reviewing a film).

Wolf Creek 2 is number one at the box office, it's a sequel to a major Australian film and this is a film review show which has consistently made a point about reviewing and spotlighting Australian films. The decision not to review it is ill-advised, inconsistent and for David and Margaret, quite embarrassing. I think for both their sakes, this really should be their final year in the chairs.

Commenter

janeygotagugn

Location

Date and time

February 26, 2014, 11:08AM

I think it is great to hear that David and Margaret have taken a stand on violence in cinema that is intended to shock and condition viewers to very more extreme imagery. This is precisely why critics like David and Margaret are so relevant and important in their roles, not to mention that they attract the audience to their show precisely because they are who they are and the audience respects their opinions. Long may they reign.The only question to ask is could the film have told the story as effectively without the imagery that it depicted and if the answer to that is yes than it is gratuitous and included for voyeuristic unhealthy shock value.

Commenter

Seriously

Location

Date and time

February 26, 2014, 11:58AM

By refusing to review it, David and Margaret have gifted a mediocre film free publicity. McLean's mock outrage is equivalent to plastering "the film they tried to ban!" across the billboards. This kind of confected off-screen drama may make people go watch a film that they otherwise wouldn't. But sadly it can't make that film good.

Commenter

jon

Location

Date and time

February 26, 2014, 12:19PM

they should quit because they wouldn't review "Wolf Creek 2"?

Commenter

StBob

Location

Date and time

February 26, 2014, 12:29PM

+10. I love their opinion on the first film - "The film is incredibly sadistic. I think it's foul in some was in terms of violence. I think it really is thoroughly nasty," Stratton said at the time.Pomeranz responded that it was a "worry", while Stratton added: "I think people and audiences, potential audiences, have to be warned about it.". What an absolute cop out those remarks are, we as humans display these features sadism, greed, violence they are all natural parts of the human make up. I do wonder how they would manage to sit through a film like the Iceman. After all this movie is centered around true events To scared maybe ?

Commenter

Geoff

Location

Date and time

February 26, 2014, 12:40PM

If I was a reviewer I wouldn't bother doing a piece on this movie either. I saw the first and found it to be nothing but pointless and graphic violence, with no artistic or other merit worth mentioning. That's also likely why David and Matgaret avoided this second instalment of dross. They likely prefer to review works with some merit beyond pointless violence, even if it is a 'stralian' movie with pointless nd graphic violence. Oh, and I do still enjoy their show! Very much in fact. Insightful and differing points of views and opposing preferences and personalities make it the great show that it is. But as they say, horses for courses!

Commenter

Warwick

Location

Date and time

February 26, 2014, 12:43PM

if it's already number 1 at the box office, why does it matter if it's being supported by two critics? It would seem such support is unnecessary. In actual fact, by not reviewing it they have now contributed an afternoon of additional media coverage to the movie's promo.

Commenter

atombomb

Location

Date and time

February 26, 2014, 1:21PM

Can't stand any film with a hand held camera and thanks to David for any warning. As for the violence congratulations to the show for not reviewing this film.

It's about time somebody responsible told the movie industry that they are going too far with a great deal of the material that is dumped on us from film makers who can't come up with a decent story. One of the reasons that we are living in such a violent society is due far too many violent films.

Commenter

Rod

Location

Date and time

February 26, 2014, 1:24PM

It's not just the extreme violence that is so repugnant about WC2, it's the fact that it's based on real events.

This film exploits real victims by glamorizing it into "entertainment".

I wouldn't even see it, let alone review it.

Someone should tell this dude to try writing a script.

Commenter

sarajane

Location

melbourne

Date and time

February 26, 2014, 1:58PM

1. David and Margaret have no obligation to review every film that is released the choice is up to them or do you want them to be a propaganda outlet for Australian film. Do you also require them to praise every Australian film?

2.David and Margaret's commentary is invariably superficial and predictably bourgeois as you'd expect from the smug costume drama and silly mystery detective ABC and I only watch them for the clips.